INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Research Article
May 14, 2022 88 47

A Gender-based Investigation of Indian Senior Secondary Students’ Misconceptions about Plant Reproduction through Concept Inventory

Anirban Roy 1 * ,
Animesh Kumar Mohapatra 1
1 Department of Education in Science and Mathematics, Regional Institute of Education (NCERT) Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751022, INDIA* Corresponding Author
Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2022, 18(4), e2287, https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12089
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The central objective of this study was to unveil the misconceptions and their sources through the responses of Indian senior secondary (n=102; 54 boys and 48 girls) students about plant reproduction. A concept inventory with correct and incorrect statements was designed to elicit the misconceptions among class XII students. A semi-structured interview of selected students followed this exercise to report the sources of misconceptions from students’ perspectives. Descriptive statistics like mean and percentages determined the extent of misconceptions through frequencies of incorrect responses–overall, 40.392% of students bore misconceptions in this sub-concept with statements like “no difference between vegetative propagation and vegetative reproduction” getting a higher frequency of incorrect responses. Gender-based differences were investigated through inferential statistics like Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests, more misconceptions were observed in boys than girls in plant reproduction. Qualitative analysis of the interview responses revealed the ambiguities in everyday classroom transactions and textbook explanations as to the major sources behind misconceptions. The study concluded with suggestive measures–and possible pedagogical tools–to help teachers identify and eradicate student misconceptions.

KEYWORDS

concept inventory gender misconceptions plant reproduction senior secondary students

CITATION (APA)

Roy, A., & Mohapatra, A. K. (2022). A Gender-based Investigation of Indian Senior Secondary Students’ Misconceptions about Plant Reproduction through Concept Inventory. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2287. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12089
Harvard
Roy, A., and Mohapatra, A. K. (2022). A Gender-based Investigation of Indian Senior Secondary Students’ Misconceptions about Plant Reproduction through Concept Inventory. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2287. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12089
Vancouver
Roy A, Mohapatra AK. A Gender-based Investigation of Indian Senior Secondary Students’ Misconceptions about Plant Reproduction through Concept Inventory. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4):e2287. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12089
AMA
Roy A, Mohapatra AK. A Gender-based Investigation of Indian Senior Secondary Students’ Misconceptions about Plant Reproduction through Concept Inventory. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4), e2287. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12089
Chicago
Roy, Anirban, and Animesh Kumar Mohapatra. "A Gender-based Investigation of Indian Senior Secondary Students’ Misconceptions about Plant Reproduction through Concept Inventory". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2022 18 no. 4 (2022): e2287. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12089
MLA
Roy, Anirban et al. "A Gender-based Investigation of Indian Senior Secondary Students’ Misconceptions about Plant Reproduction through Concept Inventory". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 18, no. 4, 2022, e2287. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12089

REFERENCES

  1. Adesoji, F. A., & Babatunde, A. G. (2008). Investigating gender difficulties and misconceptions in inorganic chemistry at the senior secondary level. International Journal of African and African American Studies, 7(1), 1-7.
  2. Ahmad, S., & Jamil, S. (2020). Development and application of structural communication grid tests for diagnosing students’ misconceptions in the subject of biology at secondary level. Journal of Contemporary Teacher Education, 4, 73-96.
  3. Ainiyah, M., Ibrahim, M., & Hidayat, M. T. (2018). The profile of student misconceptions on the human and plant transport systems. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 947(1), 012064. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012064
  4. Akinbadewa, B. O., & Sofowora, O. A. (2020). The effectiveness of multimedia instructional learning packages in enhancing secondary school students’ attitudes toward biology. International Journal on Studies in Education, 2(2), 119-133. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.19
  5. Awan, A., Khan, T., & Aslam, T. (2012). Gender disparity in misconceptions about the concept of solution at secondary level students in Pakistan. Journal of Elementary Education, 22(1), 65-79.
  6. Barrass, R. (1984). Some misconceptions and misunderstandings perpetuated by teachers and textbooks of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 18(3), 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1984.9654636
  7. Bhattacharjee, J. (2015). Constructivist approach to learning–An effective approach of teaching learning. International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary & Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(4), 23-28.
  8. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. N. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Pearson Publishing House.
  9. Cahyanto, M. A. S, Ashadi, A., & Saputro, S. (2019). An analysis of gender difference on students’ misconceptions in learning the material classification and its changes. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA [Journal of Science Education Innovation], 5(2), 157-167. https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v5i2.26613
  10. Capik, C., & Gozum, S. (2015). Psychometric features of an assessment instrument with likert and dichotomous response formats. Public Health Nursing, 32(1), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12156
  11. Chattopadhyay, A. (2005). Understanding of genetic information in higher secondary students in northeast India and the implications for genetics education. Cell Biology Education, 4(1), 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-06-0042
  12. Chen, C., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P.M., Sasselov, D., & Fredericks, C. (2020). The impact of student misconceptions on student persistence in a MOOC. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(6), 879-910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21616
  13. Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. (2015). Relations between intuitive biological thinking and biological misconceptions in biology majors and nonmajors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094
  14. Crawley, F. E., & Arditzoglou, S. Y. (1988). Life and physical science misconceptions of preservice elementary teachers. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the School Science and Mathematics Association, Austin, Texas, USA.
  15. Deshmukh, N. D. (2015). Why do school students have misconceptions about life processes? In E. G. S. Daniel (Ed.), Biology education and research in a changing planet (pp. 31-43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-524-2_4
  16. El-Uri, F. I., & Malas, N. (2013). Analysis of use of a single best answer format in an undergraduate medical examination. Qatar Medical Journal, 2013(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5339/qmj.2013.1
  17. Etobro, A. B., & Fabinu, O. E. (2017). Students’ perceptions of difficult concepts in biology in senior secondary schools in Lagos State. Global Journal of Educational Research, 16(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v16i2.8
  18. Flores, F., Tovar, M. E., & Gallegos, L. (2003). Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: An integrated view. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 269-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126793
  19. Garvin-Doxas, K., Klymkowsky, M., & Elrod, S. (2007). Building, using, and maximizing the impact of concept inventories in the biological sciences: Report on a National Science Foundation sponsored conference on the construction of concept inventories in the biological sciences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 277-282. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-05-0031
  20. Gómez-Rodríguez, R., Díaz-Pulido, B., Gutiérrez-Ortega, C., Sánchez-Sánchez, B., & Torres-Lacomba, M. (2020). Cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the standardised Nordic Questionnaire Spanish version in musicians. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020653
  21. González, G. M. C., Herrara, B. S., & Rosero, E. V. (2016). Development and psychometric tests of the instrument “caring” -short version to measure the competence of care at home. The Revista de la Universidad Industrial de Santander. Salud [The Magazine of the Industrial University of Santander. Health], 48(2), 222-231. https://doi.org/10.18273/revsal.v48n2-2016007
  22. Green, K., Roller, C., & Cubeta, M. (2019). A plethora of fungi: Teaching a middle school unit on fungi. Science Activities, 56(2), 52-62.
  23. Green, S., & Thompson, M. (2005). Structural equation modeling in clinical psychology research. In M. Roberts, & S. Ilardi (Eds.), Handbook of research in clinical psychology (pp. 139-189). Wiley-Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756980
  24. Hadjichambis, A. C., Georgiou, Y., Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D., Kyza, E. A., & Mappouras, D. (2016). Investigating the effectiveness of an inquiry-based intervention on human reproduction in relation to students’ gender, prior knowledge and motivation for learning in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 50(3), 261-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2015.1067241
  25. Halim, A. S., Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S.A., Olsen, L. J., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2018). Identifying and remediating student misconceptions in introductory biology via writing-to-learn assignments and peer review. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-10-0212
  26. Hasibuan, H., & Djulia, E. (2016). Analisis kesulitan belajar siswa pada materi virus di kelas X Aliyah Al-fajri Tanjungbalai tahun pembelajaran 2016/2017 [Analysis of students’ learning difficulties on virus material in class X Aliyah Al-fajri Tanjungbalai for the 2016/2017 academic year]. Jurnal Pelita Pendidikan [Journal of Educational Pelita], 4(4), 16-24.
  27. Hasyim, W., Suwono, H., & Susilo, H. (2018). Three-tier test to identify students’ misconception of human reproduction system. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains [Journal of Science Education], 6(2), 48-54.
  28. Hershey, D. R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html
  29. Hershey, D. R. (2005). More misconceptions to avoid when teaching about plants. American Institute of Biological Sciences. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501356.pdf
  30. Jia, C., Yang, T., Qian, Y., & Wu, X. (2020). The gender differences in science achievement, interest, habit, and creativity. Science Education International, 31(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i2.9
  31. Kalas, P., O’Neill, A., Pollock, C., & Birol, G. (2013). Development of a meiosis concept inventory. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 655-664. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-10-0174
  32. Karakaya, F., Yilmaz, M., Cimen, O., & Adiguzel, M. (2020). Identifying and correcting pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about the alternation of generations. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(4), 1047-1063. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.654967
  33. Kareem, A. A. (2018). The use of multimedia in teaching biology and its impact on students’ learning outcomes. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 9, 157-165.
  34. Karpudewan, M., Zain, A. N. M., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2017). Introduction: Misconceptions in science education: An overview. In M. Karpudewan, A. N. Zain, & A. L. Chandrasegaran (Eds.), Overcoming students’ misconceptions in science (pp. 1-5). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3437-4_1
  35. Katz, I. (2017). In the eye of the beholder: Motivational effects of gender differences in perceptions of teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1101533
  36. Kaufman, R., Watkins, R., & Guerra, I. (2002). Getting valid and useful educational results and payoffs: We are what we say, do, and deliver. International Journal of Educational Reform, 11(1), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678790201100105
  37. Kennedy, G., & Lodge, J. (2016). All roads lead to Rome: Tracking students’ affect as they overcome misconceptions. In Proceedings of the ASCILITE: Shaping the Future of Tertiary Education (pp. 318-329).
  38. Klymkowsky, M. W., Underwood, S. M., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (2010). The biological concepts instrument (BCI): A diagnostic tool to reveal student thinking. arXiv:1012.4501v1. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1012.4501
  39. Kristyasari, M. L., Yamtinah, S., Utomo, S.B., & Indriyanti, N. Y. (2018). Gender differences in students’ science literacy towards learning on integrated science subject. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1097(1), 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1097/1/012002
  40. Kubiatko, M., Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2021). Factual knowledge of students about plants is associated with attitudes and interest in botany. International Journal of Science Education, 43(9), 1426-1440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1917790
  41. Kumandas, B., Ateskan, A., & Lane, J. (2019). Misconceptions in biology: A meta-synthesis study of research, 2000-2014. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 350-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1490798
  42. Kwen, B. H. (2005). Teachers’ misconceptions of biological science concepts as revealed in science examination papers. In Proceedings of the AARE 2005 International Education Research Conference, Parramatta, Australia.
  43. Lamichhane, R., Reck, C., & Maltese, A. V. (2018). Undergraduate chemistry students’ misconceptions about reaction coordinate diagrams. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 834-845. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00045J
  44. Lampert, P., Scheuch, M., Pany, P., Müllner, B., & Kiehn, M. (2019). Understanding students’ conceptions of plant reproduction to better teach plant biology in schools. Plants, People, Planet, 1(3), 248-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.52
  45. Libarkin, J. C. (2008). Concept inventories in higher education science. In Proceedings of the National Research Council Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Workshop 2, Washington, DC.
  46. Lin, S. W. (2004). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of flowering plant growth and development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 175-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-6484-y
  47. Macklem, G. L. (2015). Boredom in the classroom: Addressing student motivation, self-regulation, and engagement in learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13120-7
  48. Mann, M., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). A pencil and paper instrument to diagnose students’ conceptions of breathing, gas exchange and respiration. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(2), 55-60.
  49. Maskour, L., Alami, A., Agorram, B., & Zaki, M. (2016). Study of some learning difficulties in plant classification among university students. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 5, 294-297.
  50. Maskour, L., Alami, A., Zaki, M., & Agorram, B. (2019). Plant classification knowledge and misconceptions among university students in Morocco. Education Sciences, 9(1), 48-68. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010048
  51. Moodley, K., & Gaigher, E. (2019). Teaching electric circuits: Teachers’ perceptions and learners’ misconceptions. Research in Science Education, 49, 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11165-017-9615-5
  52. Mulungye, M. M., O’Connor, M., & Ndethiu, S. (2016). Sources of student errors and misconceptions in algebra and effectiveness of classroom practice remediation in Machakos County-Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(10), 31-33.
  53. Murat, M., Kanadli, S., & Unisen, A. (2011). Seventh grade students’ misconceptions about animals’ reproduction, growth and development and their likely resources. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(1), 179-197.
  54. Nehm, R., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57(3), 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570311
  55. Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. Jossey-Bass Publications.
  56. Novitasari, C., Ramli, M., & Karyanto, P. (2019). Content analysis of misconceptions on bacteria in the biology textbook of high school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(2), 022076. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022076
  57. NRC. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school experience. National Academies Press.
  58. NRC. (2003). BIO 2010: Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. National Academies Press.
  59. Oberoi, M. (2017). Review of literature on student’s misconceptions in science. International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, 5(3), 6274-6280.
  60. Osorio, V. M. L., & Jaimes, L. E. (2019). Content and face validity of the Spanish version of the sexual self-concept inventory for early adolescent girls. Investigacion y Educacion en Enfermeria [Nursing Research and Education], 37(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v37n1e02
  61. Perrone, M. K. (2007). Addressing student misconceptions about reproduction and heredity: Classroom based research project. Education Journal, 545-631.
  62. Potvin, P., & Cyr, G. (2017). Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about Buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1121-1142. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21396
  63. Quaigrain, K., & Arhin, A. K. (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1301013. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1301013
  64. Quansah, F. (2017). The use of Cronbach alpha reliability estimate in research among students in public universities in Ghana. African Journal of Teacher Education, 6(1), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.21083/ajote.v6i1.3970
  65. Queloz, A. C., Klymkowsky, M. W., Stern, E., Hafen, E., & Köhler, K. (2017). Diagnostic of students’ misconceptions using the biological concepts instrument (BCI): A method for conducting an educational needs assessment. PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0176906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176906
  66. Ramadhani, R., Abdullah, A., Hasanuddin, H., & Khairil, K. (2020). The implementation of constructivist modules to correct misconceptions on the human reproductive system concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1460(1), 012062. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1460/1/012062
  67. Rillo, A., Martínez, B., Castillo, J., & Rementería, J. (2020). Constructivism: An interpretation from medical education. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 10(3), 1-12.
  68. Roy, A., & Singh, S. (2021). Investigating the learning gaps of senior-secondary children through original (real-life) biological Images: What really lacks? Voices of Teachers and Teacher Educators, 10(1), 177-190.
  69. Rubio, D. M. (2005). Alpha reliability. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 59-63). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00395-9
  70. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smit, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020-1049. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213477680
  71. Schussler, E. (2008). From flowers to fruits: How children’s books represent plant reproduction. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1677-1696. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701570248
  72. Selcuk, A., & Mehmet, Y. (2020). The effect of constructivist learning approach and active learning on environmental education: A meta-analysis study. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 10(1), 44-84.
  73. Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions: Why every teacher needs to know about them. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(4), 24-28.
  74. Stein, M., Larrabee, T. G., & Barman, C. R. (2008). A study of common beliefs and misconceptions in physical science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 1- 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173666
  75. Stern, F., Kampourakis, K., Huneault, C., Silveira, P., & Müller, A. (2018). Undergraduate biology students’ teleological and essentialist misconceptions. Education Sciences, 8(3), 135. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030135
  76. Susanti, R., Rustaman, Y. N., & Sri, R. (2010). Profile material difficulty level of plant physiology according to prospective biology teachers. In Proceedings of the 4th International Seminar on Science Education, Science Education Program School of Postgraduate Studies, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung, West Java.
  77. Taber, K. S. (2011). Models, molecules and misconceptions: A commentary on secondary school students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(1), 3-18.
  78. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
  79. Taiwo, S. K., & Emeke, E. A. (2014). Relationship among learning style preferences, gender, age, and students’ achievement in senior secondary school biology. West African Journal of Education, XXXIV, 273-283.
  80. Tristán-López, A. (2008). Modificación al modelo de Lawshe para el dictamen cuantitativo de la validez de contenido de un instrumento objetivo [Modification to the Lawshe model for the quantitative opinion of the content validity of an objective instrument]. Avances en Medición [Advances in Measurement], 6(1), 37-48.
  81. Trochim, W. M. (2005). The research methods knowledge base. http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm
  82. Unal, S., Costu, B., & Ayas, A. (2010). Secondary school students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), 3-29.
  83. Vaishali, & Misra, P. K. (2020). Implications of constructivist approaches in the classrooms: The role of the teachers. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 17-25. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2020/v7i430205
  84. Wartono, Batlolona, J. R., & Putirulan, A. (2018). Cognitive conflict strategy and simulation practicum to overcome student misconception on light topics. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 12(4), 747-757. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i4.10433
  85. Wong, K. C., Lam, Y. R., & Ho, L. M. (2002). The effects of schooling on gender differences. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 827-843. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192022000019080
  86. Wynn, A. N., Pan, I. L., Rueschhoff, E.E., Herman, M. A., & Archer, E. K. (2017). Student misconceptions about plants–A first step in building a teaching resource. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1253
  87. Yalim, E. (2021). High school students’ level of knowledge and attitudes towards the use of technology in biology classrooms [Master’s thesis, Bilkent University].
  88. Yamtinah, S., Masykuri, M., Ashadi, & Shidiq, A. S. (2017). Gender differences in students’ attitudes toward science: An analysis of students’ science process skill using testlet instrument. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868(1), 030003. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995102
  89. Yip, D. Y. (1998). Children’s misconceptions on reproduction and implications for teaching. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1998.9655632
  90. Yucel, E. O, & Ozkan, M. (2015). Determination of secondary school students’ cognitive structure, and misconception in ecological concepts through word association test. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(5), 660-674. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2014.2022
  91. Zeilik, M., & Morris-Dueer, V. J. (2005). What are essential concepts in ‘Astronomy 101’? A new approach to find consensus from two different samples of instructors. Astronomy Education Review, 2(3), 61-108. https://doi.org/10.3847/AER2004017

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.